It can be Judicially Reviewed. If the Court agrees it directs the decision to the Board who in fact is a party to the action and will look to either rebut the argument or perhaps acknowledge it. If a case has major flaws in it I think choosing one or more of them could lead to an argument that the individual did not fit the criteria of absolute guilt, had not had a fair trial etc and the result was that Board was acting ultra vires, ignoring the BORA or both. But its new territory whereas innocent people being denied parole because of not admitting offending is not. Although on the latter there are a number of NZ cases where lifers have been paroled without admitting guilt or have appeals pending. It's all over the shop and one could argue that breaches the BORA.
Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
It can be Judicially Reviewed. If the Court agrees it directs the decision to the Board who in fact is a party to the action and will look to either rebut the argument or perhaps acknowledge it. If a case has major flaws in it I think choosing one or more of them could lead to an argument that the individual did not fit the criteria of absolute guilt, had not had a fair trial etc and the result was that Board was acting ultra vires, ignoring the BORA or both. But its new territory whereas innocent people being denied parole because of not admitting offending is not. Although on the latter there are a number of NZ cases where lifers have been paroled without admitting guilt or have appeals pending. It's all over the shop and one could argue that breaches the BORA.
The "preservation" of the shirt samples which was never able to be backed up by preserved samples in the crime scene is a nice tight argument with many corridors leading to the proven impossibility of it not only from the crime scene. Why did Miller need to preserve "air-dried" samples?
Crown case can only consider air dried sample, brain flew to overall, air dried nicely, then transferred to shirt while removing overall.
That is the specific crown case.
Du Plessis would later say that air drying a sample for IHC is the WORST method.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,093
On the 83% match
I only have time for a short comment about this today, but based upon the following passage, I don't believe that the 83% number originated with David Hislop. Having already offered an educated guess on what the number might mean, I am not strongly inclined to say much more than that the passage below suggests a different interpretation.
"Forensic scientist Susan Vintiner said a technique used to say DNA found at Glenn Weggery's house was a close match to Amber and Christine Lundy was "misleading". The court earlier heard that a sample taken from Weggery's house had various people's DNA in it. A report by another forensic expert, who will give evidence, found that DNA in the sample was 83 per cent similar to Christine Lundy and 88 per cent similar to Amber. That was done by measuring "peaks" in the found DNA against samples taken from Amber and Christine Lundy. But Vintiner said that observation was "misleading". "There is no proper scientific way of putting evidential weight on it. "It is something we would never do in our lab." That was because the DNA mixture was extremely complex, with three or more people's DNA in the mix, she said." Stuff. See also Sharon Lundy's article here.
I only have time for a short comment about this today, but based upon the following passage, I don't believe that the 83% number originated with David Hislop. Having already offered an educated guess on what the number might mean, I am not strongly inclined to say much more than that the passage below suggests a different interpretation.
"Forensic scientist Susan Vintiner said a technique used to say DNA found at Glenn Weggery's house was a close match to Amber and Christine Lundy was "misleading". The court earlier heard that a sample taken from Weggery's house had various people's DNA in it. A report by another forensic expert, who will give evidence, found that DNA in the sample was 83 per cent similar to Christine Lundy and 88 per cent similar to Amber. That was done by measuring "peaks" in the found DNA against samples taken from Amber and Christine Lundy. But Vintiner said that observation was "misleading". "There is no proper scientific way of putting evidential weight on it. "It is something we would never do in our lab." That was because the DNA mixture was extremely complex, with three or more people's DNA in the mix, she said." Stuff. See also Sharon Lundy's article here.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
This doesn't square with the statement that "Any tests which gave DNA matched to Weggery". In reality it was Weggery and (perhaps) Amber and Christine - in an 'extremely complex' mix.
OTOH, Vintiner said that "DNA found on that polo shirt was a billion billion times more likely to be from Mrs Lundy than from someone unrelated and chosen at random". Not that it would be unusual have your wife's DNA on your clothing (so while that number may be impressive it's of no consequence) but that shirt must have had Mark Lundy's DNA all over it. Yet here there is no mention of mixed profiles.
The problem with DNA is that it gets everywhere. Weggery says he never touched anything in the Lundy house on that day, but that seems unlikely. Until he found the bodies he had no reason not to touch anything, and there was blood all over the place.
Similarly, Christine Lundy's DNA on Mark's shirt would have meant nothing if she hadn't been murdered, so why make a big deal of it? Because it's not about getting to the truth, but pushing a narrative. DNA places the murderer at the scene. Mark Lundy did it - thus Christine's DNA on his shirt is damning, while her DNA being found in Weggery's blood is "misleading". The jury was presented with only two options, one attempting to prosecute and the other to misdirect. It's hardly surprising which one they chose...
In fact the prosecutor Philip Morgan confirmed at the 2017 appeal answering a question by Helen Winkelmann.
There was no DNA in the material alleged to be Christine's brain. We tried various methods but got no result he said.
This is remarkable because brain is uncommonly dense in DNA. It was not her or anyone's brain. It is the sole evidence presented to the jury, this is Christine Lundy's brain.
I probably posted the specific exchange verbatim back in the thread.
There was no DNA in the material alleged to be Christine's brain. We tried various methods but got no result he said.
This is remarkable because brain is uncommonly dense in DNA. It was not her or anyone's brain. It is the sole evidence presented to the jury, this is Christine Lundy's brain.
I probably posted the specific exchange verbatim back in the thread.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Unless it was cooked. More evidence that David Hislop, QC did not have the claimed 'particular expertise in the area of pathology and DNA'.
But of course the Crown has an answer to that. Their new theory is that Lundy is a cannibal who cooked and ate his wife's brain.
Ron Young denied parole because he planned it all so carefully, but slipped up because his daughter woke.
Ron Young joins a parade of elite New Zealand judges who hung their brains on the coat hooks before solemn deliberations.
Because Mark will be released some time and have access to the internet after 25 years, I prefer not to comment in detail on your concept, but it is as rational as anything the elite judges have determined as fact from the case.
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Would that be the same Ron Young who paroled a rapist who then abused and brutally murdered his neighbor just 72 days after being released from prison?
NZ Parole Board: Our thoughts are with the family of Juliana Herrera
A man who admitted killing his neighbour in a "brutal" and "callous" attack has been sentenced to at least 23 years in prison
There is just one Ron Young, and he paroled Mark in 2013 after the privy council in England correctly determined the case was a scientific travesty.Would that be the same Ron Young who paroled a rapist who then abused and brutally murdered his neighbor just 72 days after being released from prison?
NZ Parole Board: Our thoughts are with the family of Juliana Herrera
A man who admitted killing his neighbour in a "brutal" and "callous" attack has been sentenced to at least 23 years in prison
So 13 months of freedom courtesy this right thinking judge.
BUT
Ron Young allowed an axe murderer to comingle with a community at that time.
Concrete from the neck up means a pivot is effortless 10 years on.
Last edited:
Mark wasn't paroled. His conviction was quashed and he was given bail as he waited for a retrial. Mark and Scott Watson are not friends but unfortunately, both are punished for not admitting "their" crimes.
Corrections despite having the largest budget of any Government department cannot turn its mind to considering the safest way to treat those who claim to be innocent. They may be just beginning to work on that, we'll see.
Corrections despite having the largest budget of any Government department cannot turn its mind to considering the safest way to treat those who claim to be innocent. They may be just beginning to work on that, we'll see.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
The irony that Lundy, who is a threat to nobody on earth, remains in jail while violent scum are set free to rape and murder isn't lost on me.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...hurch-neighbour-was-on-parole-for-brutal-rape
51 separate injuries.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This is the sort of case that makes my blood boil. The ******* parole board knew he was a risk to the community, but they released him. They too, are responsible for Juliana's death.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
It's just one of a revolting litany of similar cases as Lundy and Watson rot in jail.
Baino's cellmate and best man was another.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...-to-corrections-to-make-them-think-i-was-good
Baino's cellmate and best man was another.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...-to-corrections-to-make-them-think-i-was-good
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
We've seen it all before
William Bell, murdered three people and left another (Susan Couch) for dead in the aggravated robbery of the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA in 2001 - while he was out on parole for aggravated robbery, presenting a firearm and assault.
Graham Burton, murdered Karl Kuchenbecker and wounded seven others in a drug-fuelled rampage - while he was on parole for and earlier murder.
Andre Port, attacked a woman at the Auckland ASB Tennis Centre, and two weeks later, held another woman hostage at knife-point - while out on parole for sexually motivated attacks on women
There are many, many more just like this.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Unfortunately, the only way to ensure no parolee ever commits a crime is to block parole for everyone. By extension, the only way to ensure no ex-convict commits another crime is to jail all convicted people for life, or execute people for stealing a loaf of bread.
It is important to note one thing. It takes a prodigious effort for a guilty man to claim innocence, but comes naturally to those telling the truth. It is one of the giant myths that all prisoners claim innocence
To claim it, is a leading symptom of true innocence. This from a chaplain in an American prison I remember, because it is self evident when reflected on.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree. But unlike the Lundy case when compared with the three cases in which I have commented, the perpetrators each had records of hundreds of convictions for violent crimes.
William Bell had more than 100 prior criminal convictions, including theft, fraud, unlawful taking of motor vehicles, burglaries, entering with intent, demands with intent to steal, aggravated robberies, presenting firearms, impersonating police, assaults, trespasses, and traffic and drug offences. Why on earth was this guy let loose on an unsuspecting public?
Graham Burton didn't steal a loaf of bread, he too had hundreds of convictions for violent crimes. He murdered a complete stranger in a fit of rage because he had been booted out of a night club. He was convicted in 1992. In 1998 he escaped and committed more violent crimes before he was recaptured. In 2004 the parole board refused his parole, stating that "Burton was at high risk of re-offending if released" , yet only two years later in 2006, that very same parole board let him loose because "his behaviour had been impeccable". Less than six months later, having committed a further series of crimes including assaults and drug using and dealing, he murdered another person. Why was Burton let loose on an unsuspecting public?
As for Andre Port, you can read about this particular piece of scumbaggery here...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/sex-f...trict-supervision/IJYZOIEFERF6534QEQ3VJ7DPQU/
His own family called him "a ticking time bomb" and asked for him not to be paroled. NZ Parole Board chose to ignore them and let him out, and within a few weeks, even though he was supposed to be under strict supervision, he managed to attack two more women.
To relate this back to the Lundy case, Mark Lundy is a person who had ZERO criminal record...never even been charged for anything in his life, not even a traffic violation, and who, in the opinion of many (including me) has been wrongfully convicted of the murder of his wife and child. He represents a danger to absolutely no-one. He has been denied parole, yet the NZ parole board grants parole to people with hundreds of criminal convictions and proven track records of violence, and who DO represent a very real danger to anyone they come in contact with.
IMO, Mark Lundy (and Scott Watson) were both wrongfully convicted, punished for crimes they did not commit, and are now being further punished for having the balls to stand-up to the justice system by telling them they got it wrong!
Last edited:
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Thanks for that. Not living in New Zealand, I wasn't familiar with these cases, especially the fact the people you mentioned had a long criminal history. And in Graham Burton's case, all it took to change the parole board's opinion was two years of good conduct. An impressive feat for such a person, but given his past I would think at least another two years were warranted.
It would be interesting to compare the rates of violent crimes committed while on parole for previous violent crime convictions across jurisdictions (UK, EU, Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia) to see if any one country does noticeably better or worse than the others. Three major screw-ups in two decades is memorable, but is it out of line? Parole boards don't have crystal balls.
Alas, this is drifting off topic. It might be worth a new thread.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,191
The CCRC are expected to decide later this year if the case is referred for more judicial action, eg another appeal.
The case was solved on the first page of this thread.
The prosecution say a car made exactly 3 equal trips with a given amount of petrol.
The defence say the car made one trip on that same given amount of petrol.
Simple experiments on a race track show that driving a gasoline fueled car with maximum fuel conservation in mind results in one third the consumption under racing conditions. This holds for all petrol fueled cars, including super 8 driven by Greg Murphy. We know this because he drives his car around towns between racing. Multiple independent research projects show this.
On the trip he did make, he achieved an average of 96 mph and negotiated 5 sets of traffic lights through 30 mph towns. He drove as though on a race track to achieve this average.
The prosecution say he killed his family in a bloody frenzy with an axe, then stood in full view of his neighbours forcing a window to stage a break in, with 2 dead bodies in the house, then drove back to the motel without a trace of blood on his person.
And so on.
This is text book police and judicial mendacity all the way to the highest courts.
The case was solved on the first page of this thread.
The prosecution say a car made exactly 3 equal trips with a given amount of petrol.
The defence say the car made one trip on that same given amount of petrol.
Simple experiments on a race track show that driving a gasoline fueled car with maximum fuel conservation in mind results in one third the consumption under racing conditions. This holds for all petrol fueled cars, including super 8 driven by Greg Murphy. We know this because he drives his car around towns between racing. Multiple independent research projects show this.
On the trip he did make, he achieved an average of 96 mph and negotiated 5 sets of traffic lights through 30 mph towns. He drove as though on a race track to achieve this average.
The prosecution say he killed his family in a bloody frenzy with an axe, then stood in full view of his neighbours forcing a window to stage a break in, with 2 dead bodies in the house, then drove back to the motel without a trace of blood on his person.
And so on.
This is text book police and judicial mendacity all the way to the highest courts.
Last edited:
The prosecution had one claim of a proven forensic item linking Lundy to the crime.
Without going into details, they shopped around the world till they could pay a crooked Texan to fabricate a link, and all the way to our crooked Supreme Court it worked!
Without going into details, they shopped around the world till they could pay a crooked Texan to fabricate a link, and all the way to our crooked Supreme Court it worked!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
For those unfamiliar with the case, and what this quack pathologist did...
https://newsroom.co.nz/2022/08/19/why-the-lundy-case-will-never-go-away/
The Texan pathologist
One of the most contentious issues was the organic matter found on Lundy’s shirt. In 2001 there was a pathologist named Rodney Miller visiting from Texas. He had never been on a crime scene or dealt with a criminal trial, nor received forensic qualifications aside from a three-month course almost 20 years prior.
He was approached by the police, who wanted him to confirm that the organic matter on the shirt was brain matter.
Miller was quoted as being amenable to police requests, saying “it would be great to nail the bad guy”.
Miller employed a technique commonly used to identify different diseases in laboratories called immunohistochemistry, or IHC.
It’s a technique well-documented in its usefulness at identifying different diseases, but not known for its ability to determine what part of a body any given sample comes from.
Nevertheless, Miller told the court that the stuff on Lundy’s shirt came from brain or central nervous system tissue.
It’s a test that hasn’t been used this way in criminal trials elsewhere in the world.
(Eventually – after the trial – the Court of Appeal were to agree with the defence submissions that this evidence should not have been included in the trial.)
One of the most contentious issues was the organic matter found on Lundy’s shirt. In 2001 there was a pathologist named Rodney Miller visiting from Texas. He had never been on a crime scene or dealt with a criminal trial, nor received forensic qualifications aside from a three-month course almost 20 years prior.
He was approached by the police, who wanted him to confirm that the organic matter on the shirt was brain matter.
Miller was quoted as being amenable to police requests, saying “it would be great to nail the bad guy”.
Miller employed a technique commonly used to identify different diseases in laboratories called immunohistochemistry, or IHC.
It’s a technique well-documented in its usefulness at identifying different diseases, but not known for its ability to determine what part of a body any given sample comes from.
Nevertheless, Miller told the court that the stuff on Lundy’s shirt came from brain or central nervous system tissue.
It’s a test that hasn’t been used this way in criminal trials elsewhere in the world.
(Eventually – after the trial – the Court of Appeal were to agree with the defence submissions that this evidence should not have been included in the trial.)
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,807
I always thought the timeline on this one just never added up in terms of what would have been required.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,093
messenger RNA
IIRC the appeals court threw out the messenger RNA evidence but let the conviction stand. The mRNA evidence was extremely dubious for a number of reasons, the primary one being that RNA is much more labile to nonenzymatic hydrolysis than DNA is. I suspect that many of the problems in the IHC evidence are discussed within Mr. Lundy's submission to the CCRC.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,093
Timelines
The timeline in the first trial was absurd, based upon traffic conditions. The timeline in the second trial was scarcely better if one takes the pathologist's comments about Amber's stomach contents as a given.
Cynric Temple-Camp keeps writing books. He is probably correct on all the cases bar Lundy.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime...k-lundy-is-guilty/2YDO3VMSEVEXHMMHKIQFBHPHEY/
Interesting he cites DNA of Christine in the spot, but the prosecutor Philip Morgan told the appeal panel in 2017 they could extract no DNA from the spot. The DNA came from the surrounding shirt material.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime...k-lundy-is-guilty/2YDO3VMSEVEXHMMHKIQFBHPHEY/
Interesting he cites DNA of Christine in the spot, but the prosecutor Philip Morgan told the appeal panel in 2017 they could extract no DNA from the spot. The DNA came from the surrounding shirt material.
The only update on this case is that Julie Anne Kincaide has resubmitted two very significant documents that it seems had purportedly not been received by the CCRC.
It is 4 years since the extremely detailed case was presented, and despite advice from the CCRC that their investigations were complete, and that their would be a determination latter 2024, Nada.
Malcolm Birdling who masterminded the case to the privy council around 2013, says that New Zealand is doing everything wrong, with lawyers everywhere, and paralysis by analysis, my paraphrase.
It is 4 years since the extremely detailed case was presented, and despite advice from the CCRC that their investigations were complete, and that their would be a determination latter 2024, Nada.
Malcolm Birdling who masterminded the case to the privy council around 2013, says that New Zealand is doing everything wrong, with lawyers everywhere, and paralysis by analysis, my paraphrase.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,093
Mark Lundy will be released on parole. This does not affect his conviction.